UBER Promotions, Inc. v. UBER Technologies, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Florida
162 F. Supp. 3d 1253 (2016)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A senior, local user of a common law trademark may obtain a narrowly tailored preliminary injunction against a junior, but federally registered and nationally prominent, user if it can demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on a reverse confusion claim. A court will balance the hardships and public interest to craft limited relief that addresses specific sources of confusion rather than granting a broad, market-excluding injunction.

Facts:

Since at least 2006, Uber Promotions, Inc. ('Promotions'), a company based in Gainesville, Florida, has used the marks 'UBER,' 'ÜBER,' and 'UBER PROMOTIONS' for its event planning and passenger transportation services, such as limousines and charter buses.
In 2010, Uber Technologies, Inc. ('Tech'), a San Francisco-based corporation, launched its app-based ride-hailing service, initially as UBERCAB, and obtained a federal trademark registration for that mark on August 31, 2010.
Later in 2010, Tech began using the mark 'UBER' and federally registered it on June 14, 2011.
Tech expanded its services rapidly and began operating permanently in Florida in November 2013.
In April 2014, Promotions sent a letter to Tech demanding it cease using the term 'Uber Promotions' in its marketing campaigns after discovering its use on a Twitter account associated with Tech.
In August 2014, Tech launched its ride-hailing services in Gainesville, Florida, which is Promotions' primary market.
After Promotions filed its lawsuit, Tech introduced a new service called UberEVENTS, which allows customers to pre-purchase rides for guests for a future event.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff Uber Promotions, Inc. sued Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
The complaint asserted claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the federal Lanham Act and Florida state law.
Plaintiff Uber Promotions, Inc. filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to enjoin Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. from using its 'UBER' marks in connection with its services throughout the state of Florida pending the outcome of the litigation.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a senior, local user of the mark 'UBER PROMOTIONS' entitled to a preliminary injunction to prevent a junior, but federally registered and nationally known, user of the 'UBER' mark from operating in the senior user's territory due to a likelihood of reverse confusion?

Opinions:

Majority - Mark E. Walker

Yes, in part. A senior, local user is entitled to a limited preliminary injunction where it establishes a substantial likelihood of success on a reverse confusion claim, but the relief must be narrowly tailored to balance the equities and public interest. The court found that while Promotions demonstrated a likelihood of success on its trademark infringement claim, primarily due to strong evidence of actual consumer confusion, a broad injunction banning Tech from the local market would impose a disproportionate hardship on Tech and harm the public. The court's reasoning proceeded in four steps. First, on the likelihood of success, the court analyzed the seven factors for likelihood of confusion in the context of reverse confusion. While most factors were a close call or weighed against confusion (e.g., dissimilarity of sales methods), the court gave dispositive weight to the evidence of actual confusion—numerous misdirected phone calls and confused customers—finding it to be the 'most persuasive evidence.' The court found the likelihood of confusion was even higher with respect to Tech's new UberEVENTS service, which was more similar to Promotions' business. Second, the court found that Promotions was likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, not from a legal presumption, but from the likely damage to its reputation and goodwill from being associated with Tech, particularly given Tech’s negative press coverage. Third, in balancing the hardships, the court concluded that a broad injunction would be a 'bazooka in the hands of a squirrel,' giving Promotions undue leverage and causing massive harm to Tech's established operations. However, a narrow injunction targeting the specific sources of confusion—Tech's lack of a local phone number and the new UberEVENTS service—would appropriately balance the harms. Fourth, the court found the public interest was best served by the narrow relief, as it would reduce consumer confusion without depriving the public of Tech's popular transportation services.

Analysis:

This decision exemplifies how courts are adapting traditional trademark law, particularly the doctrine of reverse confusion, to disputes between small, local businesses and large, national tech companies. It highlights the critical importance of 'actual confusion' evidence in a close case, showing that even a few concrete instances can be sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of success. The opinion's refusal to grant a broad injunction, instead crafting a highly specific, 'surgical' remedy, demonstrates a judicial trend towards tailored equitable relief that minimizes economic disruption. The case also solidifies the post-eBay rejection of a presumption of irreparable harm in trademark cases within the Eleventh Circuit, requiring plaintiffs to provide affirmative proof of likely, non-quantifiable injury.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: UBER Promotions, Inc. v. UBER Technologies, Inc. (2016)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"